Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Chincoteague Pony Swim 1.jpg

Image:Chincoteague Pony Swim 1.jpg, not featured

•  Info created by FieldMarine - uploaded by FieldMarine - nominated by FieldMarine -- FieldMarine (talk) 20:09, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
•  Support -- FieldMarine (talk) 20:09, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, the composition is poor Lycaon (talk) 20:40, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
•  Question - What I'm doing wrong during the upload of my images? I added this one & the one above recently & the images look like good quality on my desktop. Am I doing something wrong upon upload? I agree, the pic looks bad as shown here. FieldMarine (talk) 22:27, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
  • It's hard to tell without having access to the file on your desktop. Not to let you down, but these two suffer from at least the following: lack of clear subject, tilt, motion blur, unsharpness, lack of contrast, poor composition and unbalanced colours. If the colour space of the image on your desktop is not set right (for viewing on screen, eg. sRGB), the colours may seem different on a web browser as opposed to an imaging software, though fixing that alone unfortunately won't make these Featured Picture level. That said I believe to be speaking on behalf of the whole community when I say that these are nevertheless a valuable contribution to Commons, thank you for that, and I wish for your continued effort! –Dilaudid 23:15, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
•  Support Poor composition is a matter of taste and not a FPX reason. --norro 19:04, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

  Poor composition is a technical issue and as such a perfect FPX reason. Supporting just as an anti-oppose at the other hand may be less valid!! Lycaon (talk) 19:27, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

  "Poor composition" is certainly not a technical issue, it's an aesthetic issue. Technical issues are things like unsharpness, noise, and so on. --Aqwis (talk) 17:21, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

  Composition is not solely an aesthetic issue. It is governed by sets of rules, making it technical too. Lycaon (talk) 12:13, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

  The so-called composition "rules" are not rules, they are merely guidelines. Many, if not most, of the finest photographs the world has seen are not guided by your "composition rules". --Aqwis (talk) 18:26, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

•  Oppose I don't know what this image is about. And I think the compostion could be better. --Aktron (talk) 13:48, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose –Dilaudid 21:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

•  Comment please state reason for opposition as a courtesy to the author/uploader. Lycaon (talk) 22:18, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• I believe I stated reason enough in my comment above. –Dilaudid 07:51, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

• Right, sure. I have a reflex posting this message when seeing an unsupported oppose. Sorry, wasn't necessary here of course. Lycaon (talk) 08:02, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

• First of all  Oppose. The picture is just really nothing special. Second of all, there are pictures here FPXed due to "lack of wow". "The wow" effect a matter of taste. Scroll down and you'll find what I am talking about. There's something just wrong with the possibility that everybody can FPX, just hours after the photo has been posted. Maybe this should be done at least 2 or three days after the nomination and some votes have been casted. I am not saying this because my photos got FPX, I am an amateur photographer, I was pretty much expecting it, I am still learning -- Silfiriel (talk) 17:34, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose, poor composition. --Aqwis (talk) 17:21, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose Quite obvious composition problem, FPX should have been left there. --S23678 (talk) 15:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

result: 2 supports, 6 opposes, 0 neutral => not featured. Benh (talk) 09:49, 9 August 2008 (UTC)